Theodicy: solution lies in definition of God (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 22, 2021, 16:01 (30 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Dying is purposeful.

dhw: And its divine purpose is….? I would suggest the possibility that, if your God exists, its purpose is to ensure that life both individually and generally is an ever changing process of comings and goings which, in your own words, provides him with both the enjoyment of creation and with something interesting to watch. And humans would certainly be the most interesting of all! This would explain the vast extinct variety of life forms that had no connection with humans and would also do away with the problem of theodicy.

You know my answer, dying makes room for the future


DAVID: We are His obvious goal along with a survivability food supply from the whole bush.

dhw: There you go again. The "whole bush" contained countless extinct life forms and foods that had no connection with us!

DAVID: Way in the past, logically, as we have agreed.

dhw: So why do you keep telling us that the WHOLE bush was necessary for our food supply? That is the basic illogicality of your theory, since you believe he specially designed EVERY life form and food “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our

food.

Please remember our huge population size foreseen by God needs the current huge bush for food supply.


DAVID: I've agreed with your proposals for God only if I consider your very humanized God who is bumbling along. The fine-tuning designed into His creations show a brilliant mind who knows exactly what He intends to do and does it.

dhw: No “bumbling”, brilliant mind yes, “knows exactly what He intends to do and does it” applies to the free-for-all and the experimenting, while getting new ideas fits in with the purpose/intention of setting something in motion in order to see where it will lead.

Again describing a God unsure of His future creations doesn't change the picture of a weak struggling God, compared to my God who creates with specific purposes.


DAVID: Accepting us as the final intended goal makes what we know of His works fit beautifully into that conclusion.

dhw: How does the design of countless extinct life forms which had no connection with humans “fit in beautifully” with the conclusion that we were his “final intended goal”?

Your usual totally illogical complaint, when my theory is simple: God chose to evolve us from bacteria, as history demonstrates


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum